.
If you have a child who is very sick, you will move heaven and earth to get that kid care. Unfortunately, there’s a possibility that this assiduousness will trigger suspicions of abuse. In a horrifying dhynzrsryn
yet supremely well documented oped in today’s New York Times, the mom of a girl who suffered from inexplicable headaches, nausea, falls and pain, explains how others in her situation end up with their kids taken away by child protection system all too ready to see “medical child abuse” where none exists:
Compounding the problems with the overly broad definition of medical child abuse is the considerable misinformation spread by its proponents. In 2013, a governor’s task force in Michigan stated that “many cases of Medical Child Abuse go undetected because caregivers are skilled at deceiving the medical community.” No hard evidence, however, suggests that such parents are anything but rare. Medical child abuse is far more likely overcharged than undercharged..The task force identified these warning signs of medical child abuse: a “highly attentive parent” who is “unusually reluctant to leave his/her child’s side”; a parent who “demands second and third opinions”; a parent who “is not relieved or reassured when presented with negative test results and resists having the child discharged from the hospital”; and a parent who has “unusually detailed medical knowledge.” These warning signs accurately describe many, if not most, loving parents of medically fragile children.In its zealotry, the medical child abuse movement resembles two other panics from the recent past: the sex-abuse panic of the 1980s and 1990s and, more recently, the panic over shaken-baby syndrome. In both panics, experts saw foul play where none existed, government officials took their views at face value, and people were wrongly convicted and imprisoned, their lives ruined. Medical child abuse is causing similar harm.
…Justina Pelletier [was] a teenager who was being treated for mitochondrial disease, or “mito,” a rare metabolic disorder that interferes with energy production. On the advice of a metabolic geneticist at Tufts Medical Center who was treating her, she was admitted in 2013 to Boston Children’s Hospital, so that she could see her longtime gastroenterologist, who had recently moved there. Without consulting the girl’s doctor at Tufts, Boston Children’s concluded that the girl’s problem was not mito, but largely psychiatric, according to The Boston Globe.
When her parents disagreed and sought to transfer her back to Tufts, Boston Children’s called child protection, asserting that the parents were harmfully interfering in her care. Although the Tufts geneticist supported the mito diagnosis, a juvenile court judge deferred to Boston Children’s assessment, and Justina’s parents lost custody. After more than 16 months in state custody, much of it spent in a locked psychiatric ward, Justina was finally returned to her parents — still in a wheelchair, still sick.
What does this have to do with Free-Range Kids? Everything. The whole premise of this movement is that our children are not in constant danger — not from kidnapping, not from unfingerprinted school volunteers on a field trip, not from crayons (this week’s New Fear), and not from parents at their wits’ end.
142 Comments
Reminds me of occasions when kids were taken away from their parents because the parents were Jehovahs Witnesses. And chose not to submit to blood transfusions. Even though they sought the best medical care, the courts deemed them unfit parents.
How is fear of having this happen (a rare occasion, made more ominous because of its outrageousness) different from fear of any other rare, outrageous situation?
I just know that one day my eyes are going to get stuck from rolling them so hard.
Maybe there should be some kind of meter the government can issue parents so that we know when we’re parenting at just the right level. Parents like the Meitivs don’t care enough, and parents who seek second and third medical opinions apparently care too much. Honestly being a parent today is like being Goldilocks–one porridge is too hot, the other is too cold, good luck finding the bowl that is just right.
@ChrisG – That’s completely different. JW parents refusing medically useful transfusions don’t even claim they’re doing it because they’re seeking ‘the best medical care’; their problem is entirely religious, not medical. They’re actively turning down medical care, not seeking more or better care.
There are limits to a parents control over their child’s life, and withholding necessary medical treatment is just as much past that limit as killing them directly is.
Most of the CPS workers I know would love to have some kind of meter that could tell the difference between a parent being careful and one doing harm. One of them recently dealt with a case where irrefutable evidence was ultimately obtained showing the parent doing harm–but there was a long road of hardship (including unnecessary surgeries) for the child before they got there. Given that, I really don’t understand the Pelletier case. There was apparently evidence that a diagnosis had been made and overall her care was supervised by a single medical team. In my jurisdiction where medical abuse is established, but not deliberate attempts to harm, overall supervision from a medical professional is usually what the court requires–with deference to the parent’s choice of doctors in the absence of specific reasons.
Wow – that is very disturbing. I don’t understand how mere regulatory fiat can suddenly make that list of behaviors (i.e., seeking a second opinion, seeming anxious for child, etc.) suddenly count as “abuse” such that mandatory reporters have to report it.
The case of the parents who had the second child checked out in case he had the same disease as his dead older sister was particularly egregious – who in the world would NOT have had him tested?
Also the fact that in several of those cases, the parents essentially had to prove the child had the actual sickness being tested for, to retroactively defend themselves for having requested the test. Doesn’t that kind of defeat the purpose of a diagnostic test? I thought the point is you don’t yet know what’s wrong with you. But it seems if the tests had been negative, the parents would have been held guilty of abuse.
most of the doctors abuse experts can’t tell between abuse and a illness that mimics abuse. like eds or rickets. I heard cps worker who thought because she has type 2 diabetes she knew everything about it. so not getting the fact type 1 and type 2 are different she grabs kids takes them to the doctors where 3 of them say the kids are fine send them home. if doctors don’t like something it not go argue with the other doc it kill the family by breaking them up. part of me thinks half of mental illness we have is a bunch of bull. and how horrible is it to do something that not the norm. don’t cps find out that you don’t want do what most folks think is normal or say bye to your kids. and kids can say hello to being guinea pig for the drug company whether or not you should be getting these meds in the first place.
what happen to people where they care and tried to the right thing? maybe our country starting losing the way when the almighty dollar became more important than anything else.
Doctors should be worried about this one: “unnecessary and harmful, or potentially harmful, care” . . They defined “potentially harmful” to include any unnecessary medicine or diagnostic test that could have harmful side effects, even if the child wasn’t actually harmed. Such care, they argued, should be labeled medical child abuse.”
If that’s the definition of medical abuse, nearly every doctor alive commits it, probably every day. How about all those routine mammograms and prostrate screenings that now seem to have caused more harm than good, for starters? Or the excessive chemo that caused my husband’s permanent nerve damage? If doctors don’t wish their judgement calls to be criminalized, they should give the same benefit of the doubt to patients and parents.
I wonder if this also doesn’t speak to a medical establishment that is extremely prone to attributing certain ailments solely to psychiatric causes, to the point where they’ll punish a parent for acting otherwise. Women are, of course, especially vulnerable to having their illness labeled as psychiatric (every case mentioned in the oped is of a young woman). This is not to take away from the bigger issue, of course- but I think we need to address this dependency doctors have of automatically blaming certain patients’ brains when it’s other systems that are at fault.
James Pollock, there’s a difference between sitting around worrying that the government might try to take your kids away because you were too zealous about their medical care (that’s paranoid, especially if your kids don’t even have health problems), and objecting to an actual governor setting up an actual task force to investigate parents seeking medical care for their kids.
It’s sort of like the difference between worrying that there might be predators around every corner, and prosecuting an actual child molester when found.
So, yes. Advocate for your children to the best of your ability and without reservation or fear of government reprisal. But also stand up and object when the government actually tries to take away someone’s kid for no gd reason. The two are by no means mutually exclusive.
PS, there’s a critical difference between a rare crime and a rare government abuse. If someone kidnaps a child (and gets caught), there are consequences for that. But when the government rips a family apart for no reason, even when it’s clearly ridiculous and even when the government actually breaks the law, far too, often there are no repercussions. Far too often, if there’s no outcry, there’s no justice. (Sometimes even when there is outcry.) And since (in the US at least) the government works for us, it’s our responsibility to make sure that justice is done, even when the problem is one-in-a-million.
“PS, there’s a critical difference between a rare crime and a rare government abuse.”
Of course there is.
I asked what is/was the difference between the fear of the two.
There is a pervasive difference in how men and women are treated in the medical field. If I show up with an issue, the bare minimum testing is done because I’m probably just hysterical. If my husband goes in with the same symptoms, he gets a full workup and then some because he must be dying. It’s even worse with my kids. If I take them in for any kind of problem, I’m overreacting, but if I don’t acquiesce to every prescribed treatment, I’m a terrible mother. I also hate the deference paid to the doctors in these cases and other instances, as if they were completely infallible. I was in the Navy for six years and one thing I learned was that a college degree doesn’t automatically make someone smarter and, in some cases, can make a stupid person worse.
From the quoted NY Times op-ed (emphasis mine):
That second “warning sign” is far worse than stupid. It is pure amoral rent seeking.
Any physician who would try to make a criminal of a parent for seeking a second opinion is a physician demanding to be treated as a god. It’s bad enough that some physicians labor under that misconception without benefit of a government endorsement. The government giving arrogant physicians a weapon to attack parents who seek second opinions is tantamount to the government declaring that the first physician a patient sees is a god.
“The Life You Longed For”, a novel by Maribeth Fisher is about a family with a child who has mito and what happens when the mother is accused of Munchausen’s by Proxy. It’s fiction, but very moving…..and frightening.
Jessica- Sounds like you’ve had a run with it. Hope things are getting better.
In my case, I showed up repeatedly to my provider’s office, only to be told that no further testing was necessary, I just had to figure out what in my diet was making me break out in hay fever, stomach issues, fatigue and joint pain. Also, was I sure I didn’t need to see a shrink? I probably still wouldn’t have gone back to her, were it not for a friend advising me to get some autoimmune blood testing. And what do you know? Test was positive. I should note that I have no issue with her telling me food sensitivities might be at fault; my problem was with her saying there could no be no other possible problem. But, I know, my problem is completely common.
James: “I asked what is/was the difference between the fear of the two.”
Yes, and I answered that in my first comment. TL;DR, there’s no difference, sitting around worrying that this could happen to you is stupid, but objecting (quite loudly, even!) to the fact that it is actually happening to others is quite reasonable.
“There is a pervasive difference in how men and women are treated in the medical field.”
How much of that is caused by actual differences in the way men and women approach the medical profession? I suggest the premise that Men are somewhat notorious for shaking off medical advice/treatment, while Women are more willing to seek, and accept, professional medical advice.
(as comparison, the medical community suggests that womenfolk should have their boobs put in a vise and irradiated periodically to check for cancer. Menfolk are similarly suggested to have their prostates digitally examined for signs of cancer. Are these procedures done at anything like comparable rates?).
.
I have read in the newsletter of Organic Acidemia Association, http://oaanews.org/, the stories of parents of infants who have inborn metabolic errors being accused of child abuse before a correct diagnosis is made. This seems to be happening less often as medical knowledge of these disorders becomes greater.
“James: “I asked what is/was the difference between the fear of the two.”
Yes, and I answered that in my first comment.”
Right. But then you went on to respond to a question I didn’t ask… “PS, there’s a critical difference between a rare crime and a rare government abuse.”
Hopefully, my other comment, where I engage the folly of getting mad at Michigan for investigating something, because people in Massachusetts did something outrageous. will emerge from whatever corner of the Internet it’s currently hiding in.
Short version: Michigan hasn’t doing anything but investigate a possible problem (They want to know how many cases of MbP there are, and how they’ll know when the get one.). They haven’t actually DONE anything worth getting upset at. They might… they might not. I’m reserving judgment.
Jessica, I have suffered from severe depression and anxiety for 15 years. As, couldn’t get out of bed for months at a time kind of depression. I went to GPs, OBs (when I was pregnant), psychiatrists, psychologists, religious counselors, never taken seriously. I got told that I just needed more “me time.”
My husband had a difficult time, went to Urgent Care, and told them that he was really stressed out about stuff going on in his life and it was making his stomach hurt. Instant prescription for Klonopin.
“Right. But then you went on to respond to a question I didn’t ask… “PS, there’s a critical difference between a rare crime and a rare government abuse.””
So? You didn’t ask me about it. It’s still a good point. And I answered your question. I am failing to see the problem.
“Hopefully, my other comment, where I engage the folly of getting mad at Michigan for investigating something, because people in Massachusetts did something outrageous. will emerge from whatever corner of the Internet it’s currently hiding in.
Short version: Michigan hasn’t doing anything but investigate a possible problem (They want to know how many cases of MbP there are, and how they’ll know when the get one.). They haven’t actually DONE anything worth getting upset at. They might… they might not. I’m reserving judgment.”
That’s a reasonable stance. I didn’t notice that it was two different states. So let’s be mad at the government officials who have actually hurt families for nothing in Massachusetts.
“Right. But then you went on to respond to a question I didn’t ask…” Oh my! This could turn into an actual conversation if we’re not careful!
I imagine that real MbP comes in two basic variants… in one, the child is not sick at all, but has ordinary symptoms which the parent insists are signs of a deeper ailment, or has no symptoms at all but the parent engages in fundraising for treatment that is not needed, or, in the other variant, the parent has actually poisoned the child to produce actual symptoms.
This is suggested by the “warning signs” of rejecting negative tests and seeking second and third opinions. I don’t think “seeking second and third opinions”, standing alone, is intended as a warning sign, but rather as part of rejecting negative diagnoses.
Distinguishing it from A) lack of faith in the testing performed, for whatever reason, or B) misunderstanding of what’s being done, when it’s being done, and the rationale for doing it, seems tricky. I’m glad I don’t have to do it. For that matter, I’m extremely glad I’ve had minimal intersection with the medical profession in general.
Crap, in my above comment to Jessica, I meant to conclude:
It never occurred to me that the difference might be gender-related. I just thought that mental health issues are still horribly under-served in this country. But it could be more.
“Oh my! This could turn into an actual conversation if we’re not careful!”
Meh. Conversations based on straightening out misunderstandings are necessary, but usually aren’t that compelling.
I don’t think the current events (i.e., the Michigan task force) are worthy of note. The Massachusetts incident is, but it’s over and done with, and nobody seems to be suggesting that it was something that should be emulated.
Munchausen by Proxy is a thing, and the medical profession does need to be aware of it, and does need to deal with it when they detect it. They’ll get better at sorting the false positives from the real cases (because “evidence-based” medicine is about, well, arriving at the correct treatment based on the evidence.)
Will some families get put through additional hell because of false positives in the meantime? Alas, yes. Will some children get put through hell because of false negatives? Alas, also yes. The best solution overall is the one that distributes as much accurate information as is possible to all concerned.
“This is suggested by the “warning signs” of rejecting negative tests and seeking second and third opinions. I don’t think “seeking second and third opinions”, standing alone, is intended as a warning sign, but rather as part of rejecting negative diagnoses.”
There’s a difference between rejecting negative tests and not being “relieved or reassured when presented with negative test results and [resisting] having the child discharged from the hospital.” If you are sure that your child is sick, negative test results only tell you what ISN’T wrong. Of course you’re going to want to keep trying to find out what IS wrong, which would include staying in the hospital and/or getting second opinions. I would expect to see ALL of the supposed “warning signs” in ANY parent with a very ill child who is being dismissed by doctors as not really sick.
I would suggest that a much better course of action would be for doctors to stop assuming Munchausen just because they don’t know what’s wrong.
“I would suggest that a much better course of action would be for doctors to stop assuming Munchausen just because they don’t know what’s wrong.”
If that’s what’s happening.
“If you are sure that your child is sick, negative test results only tell you what ISN’T wrong. Of course you’re going to want to keep trying to find out what IS wrong”
If something’s wrong.
“I would expect to see ALL of the supposed “warning signs” in ANY parent with a very ill child who is being dismissed by doctors as not really sick.”
I suspect that the incidence of “very ill child” with “dismissed by doctors as not really sick” is a fairly small class of people. “Very Ill child” with “doctors who are puzzled by the symptoms” would be larger, and so would “child who is not very ill” with “dismissed by doctors as not really sick”.
Yes, there is the category of “child who is sick but is not showing symptoms now”. If the child is not showing symptoms, then further testing isn’t going to resolve anything.
This is actually one of the more legitimate fears I see posted here. Obviously only if you have a child with a medical issue, particularly a mental health issue. Not as much in cases of parents insisting that there is something wrong with their children, but with parents who want to refuse treatment or use less mainstream treatments. I have a substantial number of cases (criminal and CPS) in which families are under a court issued protective orders mandating that their children take medication or get some other medical treatment. Protective Orders mandating the taking of ADHD and the latest illness de jure, bipolar disorder, medications are particularly common.
mbp has become another excuse for doctors. just because an answer isn’t easy to find is no reason to blame the parents without any proof. no one should be of accused crime they didn’t commit but with no proof doctors decide the parents are the reason the kid is sick. this keeps happing. parents see their kid isn’t getting well despite the fact doctors were to make the kid better so parents wonder if someone else might able to help better. but despite the fact it is legal the parents soon find cps and the doctors have stolen their kid. I don’t why when one of the first things we learn is how to talk we end having such trouble doing it when we’re grown. half these problems with kids could avoided if we talk to one another. sometimes I think if the founding fathers could see us now they would not be impress with us. unable to talk. religious freedom told stay in the church and out people’s daily lives. parents losing their kids without any proof of guilt. guys going to jail when the cops know they aren’t guilty of anything.
Emotionally fragile children later become emotionally fragile parents.
I knew a woman that is absolutely convinced that she is to blame because her son died. Her son was sick and hospitalized for 3 days. He died in the hospital. She is 100% certain that she is to blame because she didn’t get a 2nd opinion.
She has been beating herself up for this for 20 years.
This is one of the reasons why this blog is so important to me. People become emotionally fragile when they are not allowed to grow up and develop to handle problems. This is a danger in itself and far outweighs the boogieman.
Women may go to the doctor more often as a general rule, but if there’s anything I hate, it’s being treated as a general rule. I hate going to the doctor because of my experiences in the military. Now, in the military, there’s a lot less gender bias and a lot more “you’re just trying to get out of work” bias. I was brushed off repeatedly when I developed severe breathing problems. For six months they told me I had a cold and kept trying to give me stronger medication. Worst of all is if a doctor in the military prescribes you something and you don’t take it, because they’re officers you can be charged under the UCMJ for failure to obey a lawful order. My husband was medically discharged from the Army due to rheumatoid arthritis. At least, that’s what all of his symptoms pointed to, but because he was “only” 25 and the RF test (rheumatoid factor) was negative, he was never diagnosed. Things is, only about 80% of people with RA will have RF in their blood, and up to 20% of people tested can have it in their blood and not have symptoms. The military doctors were ignoring all of my husband’s symptoms because of the results of this one test and yeah, when we kept pushing for a diagnosis and more tests, they started asking about depression. It’s beyond frustrating to be experiencing real, debilitating pain and be written off as a head case or worrying that you could get busted if you don’t follow their prescribed treatment because you know they’re wrong.
I have a medically fragile child with a very rare disease. There are two other patients in the US. As we sought a diagnosis, I asked for second and third opinions. I questioned. I stayed with him as painful tests were performed, though they wanted me to leave. I now know enough to explain, medically, his disease to doctors who don’t know it. I hit all those targets, and his records say “militant mom” That said, it is not something I worry about. It is rare for DYFS to become involved. These cases are even more rare than child abduction. Part of free range is making informed decisions and then letting the worry go. Don’t obsess on this. If you are in the situation, take others with you so you make thoughtful decisions instead of emotional ones.
Chill.
CjhrisG. ” kids were taken away from their parents because the parents were Jehovahs Witnesses. And chose not to submit to blood transfusions. Even though they sought the best medical care, the courts deemed them unfit parents.”
In my experience in blood banks, children of Jehovah’s Witnesses were NOT removed from their homes. Mostly because they were already in the hospital.
Here’s how it usually works:
1 – Parent refuses to sign permission for transfusion.
2 – Hospital calls judge (from the judge on call list) and doc certifies that it’s medically needed and urgent.
3 – Judge issues a temporary custody thing.
4 – Transfusion happens.
5 – Temporary custody expires, kid (we hope) goes home with parents.
Jessica – “One thing I learned was that a college degree doesn’t automatically make someone smarter and, in some cases, can make a stupid person worse.”
This right here is so important. No matter what your profession – lawyer, engineer, accountant, mechanic, receptionist, physicist – there is a bell curve of competence/skill within your profession. Some will be at the high end of the curve and exceptional at what they do. Some will be at the low end of the curve and frankly horrible at what they do. And most will fall in the middle.
For some reason, people seem to forget that about doctors and constantly assume that because someone is a doctor they must really know what they’re doing just because they had all that schooling. But there are many stupid people that can do well in school, memorizing stuff and testing well, but in the real world have no capacity to think for themselves or truly understand everything they studied. And like Jessica said, those are the cases where school makes stupid people worse because now they think they know everything and their arrogance becomes dangerous.
So just like in any profession, you can have great doctors and really bad doctors. You can have doctors who really care about their patients, and doctors who only care about the money. You can have doctors who follow all the rules, and other doctors who scheme and defraud.
I was just visiting my parents and the local news kept running a story about a doctor currently on trial for defrauding Medicaid. He diagnosed many patients with cancer and treated them with surgery and chemo, billing for their treatments. Turns out the majority never had cancer in the first place.
Another similar case is a book on Amazon about doctors who did heart bypasses on healthy patients who didn’t need them solely for greed, discovered only when one skeptical patient obtained a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th opinion which found nothing wrong with his heart. The doctors and hospital were investigated by the FBI:
Coronary: A True Story of Medicine Gone Awry
http://www.amazon.com/Coronary-True-Story-Medicine-Gone/dp/0743267559/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1422759226&sr=8-3-fkmr0&keywords=cardiologist+killing
“This is a hair-raising story of the hundreds of men and women who went under the knife, not in the name of medicine, but of profit and prestige. Brilliantly told, Stephen Klaidman’s Coronary is a cautionary tale in the age of miracle medicine, and a shocking reminder to always get a second opinion.”
ALWAYS GET A 2ND OPINION. The doctor who gave you the 1st opinion could possibly be on the bottom of the doctor bell-curve in terms of competence. And even the best doctors make mistakes or have blind spots.
When even the doctors disagree about diagnosis and treatment, the parents should have the right to choose which treatment to pursue.
What? You feel anxious about the well-being of your child and you show signs of stress, impatience, and desperation when they are not well?
Abuse! Abuse!
The second and third opinion thing jumped out at me. This was explained to me as best practices 20 years ago! Doctors may be wrong; they may not be perfectly up to date on the latest research; they may just not have asked the question that would make the pattern of your symptoms clear. So a responsible patient or parent of a minor patient always gets a second or even a third opinion.
Except that pregnant and laboring women are all too often punished for doing so. As, apparently, are the parents of very sick children.
What did 16 months without medical care for her actual illness (and presumably under the effects of medication for an illness she did not have) do to the patient in this case?
“What did 16 months without medical care for her actual illness (and presumably under the effects of medication for an illness she did not have) do to the patient in this case?”
The ironic thing being… “psychiatric illness” WAS the second opinion.
the strange thing James in that case the parents didn’t want a second option. they just wanted to see one her doctors who had moved there. the parents at first were going along till they saw the doctors were trying take of all her meds. her illness is treatable but it is lifelong and genetic. since one her sisters has it and put it with all the signs and there you have a diagnose. but these doctors instead going to her doctors to argue about what she has chose to use her as a guinea pig.
if you check a site called http://medicalkidnap.com/ you find kids hospitals do this the most. and see despite the fact we say we care for kids it seems to me that isn’t the truth. cps was created save kids but half the time they aren’t saving anyone. they choose to ruin lives on the pretense that they are saving them.
@sue — great post and advice. Thanks for sharing.
In addition to Beth’s suggestion, another good fictional read about a false accusation of Munchausen is Margaret Leroy’s novel “Postcards from Berlin.” When the heroine’s daughter falls ill from a rare illness, the case is complicated by the knowledge coming out of her own past as a child in state care. And the lack of contact with her bio family meant that she was unaware that her father had the same rare disease.
I thought I would add that a common theme here seems to be an inability to distinguish between levels of risk. Many parents fear vaccines and the “action” they choose to take (not vaccinating) is to avoid a perceived (but almost nonexistent) risk of injury to the child from the vaccine. It is abundantly clear that the risk to the child of getting sick due to being unvaccinated is vastly higher, but it is harder to see this when the nurse is holding the needle in his hand. We as humans just really suck at making choices to allow a small risk, and for many parents, the action — against the advice of their doctors usually — that makes them feel that they’re DOING something is to skip the vaccines.
I can imagine that for CPS, the exactly same situation applies. They’re driven by politics and their careers to DO SOMETHING. We as a society are so risk averse that we can’t stand the possibility that a single child could be left in a dangerous household, and we are insanely vindictive after the fact against any public official that didn’t “do something to prevent” child abuse, neglect, etc. The almost certain fact that a greater number of people are being harmed wrongly by overly zealous CPS actions seems to be ignored. We as humans (again) suck at facing the reality that allowing a few legitimately neglected children to be harmed under a policy of erring on the side of leaving parents alone is a far smaller overall harm to our society than the larger number of innocent parents and children that CPS is currently damaging. We, as a society, just don’t seem capable of making the right trade-off here.
To me, this speaks to both a lack of serious thought about risk, statistics, and the greater good, coupled with a lack of courage to do the right thing (or not do the wrong thing!) when you actually do know what that is.
Here’s one story in Michigan where the parents made a decision which they thought was best for their child and they spent 15 months fighting CPS for custody. http://www.hopeforjacob.org/jacobs-story
Corey: “We as humans (again) suck at facing the reality that allowing a few legitimately neglected children to be harmed under a policy of erring on the side of leaving parents alone is a far smaller overall harm to our society than the larger number of innocent parents and children that CPS is currently damaging. We, as a society, just don’t seem capable of making the right trade-off here. ”
This is a very good point, and well put. It reminds me of something I read in Thomas Aquinas about how the larger, broader view one takes, the more one realizes that certain evils can’t be aggressively eliminated without sacrificing greater goods. Also a great Onion article about how the DNC had articulated an exciting new platform: getting rid of all bad things.
I think this points to a larger problem with medical authorities being increasingly heavy-handed. This is much more minor, but after my youngest was born last summer, she had slight jaundice. Like, slight, normal-for-a-breastfed-baby jaundice. The hospital initially insisted that I leave her in the hospital after I was discharged until the jaundice cleared up. This was silly for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that the best way to clear up jaundice in a breastfed baby is to feed that baby a lot, and that would be very hard to do if she was in the hospital and I was not. It was also silly because she was not in any imminent danger–her levels were slightly elevated, nowhere near danger range–and I was not leaving the hospital without my baby without a really, really good reason. What surprised me most was how shocked they were that I was pushing back. I wanted to know exactly what her bili levels were. I wanted to know what their plan of action was and if they’d be willing to work out an alternative course of action that allowed me to bring her home. I insisted on speaking to my family pediatrician and getting her input. After a few hours, and an appointment with my ped for the next day that I promised to keep, they agreed to let me bring her home. The strangest part of it, for me, was the fact that they acted as if it were bizarre that I did not simply immediately and unquestioningly accept their recommendation that she stay in the hospital, as if leaving your newborn baby in the hospital without you for an extra day or two or three–a hospital where they might be exposed to all manner of infections–for a mild case of a very common problem is not even something worth questioning.
That is sooo wrong. sure go blame the parents if a kid steps on a rusty nail or gets cancer. This might shock cps, but not everything about a child, is in his parents hands.
@That_Susan, I’ve read and would recommend that one too. Hmmmm….I’m sensing some kind of theme to my reading! lol
FREE RANGE FORD ….. ( A Different Kind of Auto Dealership )
Stop in and check out the cars on our lot and in our showroom.
You won’t see many Fords here. We primarily showcase cars made by OTHER auto makers, and we complain non-stop about why those “other cars” have problems. (Because they do.)
Log on to our website.
Again, you won’t see many Fords, but you WILL hear all our satisfied customers chatting about why their friends and neighbors are having problems with their cars because they aren’t Fords.
Free Range Ford – A different kind of auto dealer.
There’s definitely something to the “God Complex”, and the posters (Jessica?) that said it was just rent seeking.
My son is off the charts low on BMI, but is perfectly healthy. His head circumference was above average (80%), and height was normal (40%), and he was far ahead on milestones. His activity level was off the charts, and was quite happy (smiling and asking the “doctor” questions).
His pediatrician in Georgia was insisting on extra visits to check his weight despite there being no other symptoms besides weight. Here’s the real kicker….this complete moron recommended MORE FRIED FOODS! (On the border with Alabama). In addition, he was using the CDC growth charts when the CDC recommends using the WHO charts, especially for breast fed babies, since it turns out the CDC charts were based on unhealthy obese kids. OOPS!
Anyway, we strongly suspect the doctor was just looking for a bunch of fraudulent visits to pad his profits. We prepared a history folder just in case based on his behavior, and if I hadn’t taken another job in SC, were getting ready to go to war finding a competent doctor.
Meanwhile these bozos blew me off when I blasted them for deciding to skip the second dose of his rotavirus vaccine. Bryce got the first dose in Texas, and we moved before the second one was scheduled. When my wife got the virus, just on a whim I called to see if he’d completed the cycle to make quarantine decisions. Why did they skip? “We didn’t know if he started on Rotarix or Rotateq”. And obviously didn’t know how to use a freaking phone. We provided his records. It took me 5 minutes to call his Texas pediatrician and find out. It shouldn’t be my job to micromanage his vaccines. “I want him on the CDC recommended schedule” should pretty much cover it.
For what it’s worth, our doc in SC took one look at the Alabama docs notes, rolled his eyes, and said kids failing to thrive generally aren’t laughing about taking apart the childproof latch on the cabinet while he talks to the parents, and to keep doing what we were doing.
Cute, Steve.
How many times and in how many different ways can we say “teaching your children to handle independence and then giving it to them is good”?
When something is potentially in conflict with that idea, we discuss it That’s really how most topical blogs work. Constantly reiterating your own ideas, especially when the implementation of them is mostly a matter of common sense, doesn’t accomplish much, once the people in the discussion have come to agree with them. But recognizing the ways that society challenges those ideas and discussing how to deal with it can be useful.
From the post:
“The whole premise of this movement is that our children are not in constant danger”
I think we also have to reject the premise that our kids are in danger of being taken from us as we navigate a (complex) medical issue. I would hate to have the fear of this hanging over my head (especially if the chances are miniscule) while we were already dealing with a stressful, scary situation.
Yes, and doctors in hospitals have NEVER made a wrong diagnosis before. *insert sarcasm*
In the case of Justina Pelletier, what did those same “doctors” say after 16 months in a psyche ward (no doubtedly prodded, poked, and pumped full of meds), and no sign of getting any better? “Oops”?
16 months treated like a patient with mental issues, when her problem was physiological, as indicated by her longtime gastroenterologist and genetists. I respect doctors. But having seen a number of them over the years, for most, their beside manners need work. They go through exams like your on a conveyor belt. Check, check, check, next! I’ve been misdiagnosed before. Luckily it was just intestinal issues (ate something that didn’t agree with me), and not actually an appendix.
The point is, to much over reach, not enough thought for many authorities today. Fewer and fewer people slows down, stops, and thinks about the bigger picture. They are all too busy getting their own stuff done. And when they make a mistake, it’s swept under the rug. Allowing for future mistakes to happen. All the while, it’s the families and children that suffer for other people’s ignorance and incompetence. These people want to be praised and viewed for doing a “great job”. But when they mess up, NO ONE wants to take responsibility.
A friend of mine went through this with her daughter. First doctor said, oh, she’s an overly dramatic teenage girl with headaches. Second opinion: it’s psychiatric. Months of counseling later, still having headaches that were sending them to ER. Migraines? Treatments didn’t work but still mom & daughter were being “overly dramatic” and my friend was investigated by CPS. Another doctor did a CT scan … “oh that looks weird at the back of the head but it’s just migraines.” She happened to see an article about Chiari Malformations on the internet. Asked the doctor, “no, that’s not it.”
After a year of this, she took her daughter to Chicago (half the country away) to an expert on Chiari malformations. She was in brain surgery before the week was out, and had many, many more surgeries before dying years later.
Frankly, a lot of this sort of thing is the usual dismissing everything that women & children say. How very sad.
Growing up in Boston & still living in MA, I can say from personal experience that CHB has changed a lot particularly over the past decade
More than one of our children has Special Needs – CHB is our last choice for their care – MGH for Children & Tufts Floating provide far higher quality patient and family care – CHB is not at all what it once was – it has changed for the worst – it is so sad because it was once a loving, caring hospital, truly best of the best – CHB is too big in size & ego – it’s lost sight of it’s consumers and their needs
What happened to Justina Pelletier & Baby Bella is unconscionable – https://m.facebook.com/FightForBella?refsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FFightForBella – like Bella, our babies all were formula intolerant requiring Pedi GI care and special formulas (Neocate, Elecare, etc) – feel so badly for this poor mom & dad and their devastated family
Dr. Feldman is a nationally recognized expert on Munchausen by Proxy and has made an effort to break and torture families in the Nortwest: http://m.seattlepi.com/news/article/Persecuted-parents-or-protected-children-1092970.php
The article is over a decade old and the guy is still doing this “work” at Seattle Children’s. Laws protect him and the hospital refuses to acknowledge the problem. This needs to be publicized far and wide.
As long as innocent families being harassed and torn apart becomes unacceptable collateral damage, of a system that lives by “if it saves even one child”, things will only get worse.
You have healthcare workers that are mandated reporters who when push comes to shove have to cover their ass. Combine all that with people that love to play hero, and it becomes a corrupt system.
Keep doing what you are doing! These perspectives are critical to improvement.
@Anonymous, that link appears to be broken. Can you try it again?
Thank you, Free-Range Kids, for highlighting Prof. Eichner’s editorial, which I hope will help us get past a tragic pitfall in the field of child abuse medicine. For a troubling case that’s unfolding now in Seattle, please see http://onsbs.com/2015/06/12/medical-child-abuse-be-careful-what-you-post/
This topic really hits home for me. With both of my kids having chronic health issues, I advocate for the best medical care and for accommodations they need at school. Both of my kids have had illnesses that are rare and difficult to diagnose. I often find I know as much if not more than my kids’ doctors about their conditions. So far, doctors and teachers don’t think I’m nuts.
I feel like parents with sick kids are scrutinized…just to be sure we aren’t nuts. I’ve had social workers and psychologists subtly sit in a couple times when we have a conference at school–especially if it is a new school for my kids. So far, the psychologists have been quite nice and reasonable–luckily! But I do worry that there is a possibility of a misunderstanding.
Is a doctor who falsely accuses a parent of Munchausen-by-proxy shielded from defamation liability because of mandatory reporting? If not, how about malpractice?
“@Anonymous, that link appears to be broken.”
Assuming your talking about the link to the Seattle P.I. news story, it worked just now for me.
While I am for intervention when it comes to stupid parents who won’t do things like get their kid a life saving blood transfusion or vaccinate their kids or get their kid with curable leukemia chemotherapy, this was an overreach for sure.
There was already documented medical proof the parents were not making it up in her file so I don’t understand why this happened. My guess is the doctor did not like the way the mother was talking to him or something. If you run afoul of a medical personnel they can and sometimes do take it out on you.
I also feel like so what harm does it do if a parent wants to go see another doctor? They are the ones paying for it. I get that yes, it may waste doctor’s time but is that really a huge crime because again they are being paid for it.
SOA: I partially agree, at least about blood transfusions and perhaps essential vaccines – though not that the children should be removed from their parents. However, I think your third example, chemo, is much more ambiguous. Given my family experience of cancer and cancer treatment, I don’t think there’s anything crazy or wrong about rejecting a third or fourth try at chemo that’s a long shot anyway, which was the issue in a lot of the high-profile cases I’ve read about. An adult has every right to make that decision for himself, which should mean it can also be a legitimate decision for parents to make on a child’s behalf at some point.
Also, in some cases I’ve read about, the child was 15 or 16 and in full agreement with the parents that they did not want more chemo. It’s bizarre to me (being Canadian) that in American law a 16-year-old is considered incompetent to have any say in that decision, such that he can be not only forcibly separated from his parents, but also forced to undergo chemo against his will.
Thank you, Lenore. If you could do a follow up on Justina, I’d love to know how she’s doing now. No child should ever have to go through what that poor girl had to endure.
Notice I said curable leukemia. If you are going to die already doing some more chemo to live a few more months is a call they can make themselves.
But in many cases the doctors usually know that your prognosis is good that you can beat the cancer and so a parent in that case refusing chemo should be intervened upon because they are sentencing a child to die when they don’t have to.
I will play devil’s advocate for a moment, though: psychiatric disorders are extraordinarily common, and many times the most common ones–anxiety and depression–manifest physically. It’s not unusual for people with those disorders–especially anxiety disorders–to spend years going from doctor to doctor convinced that something is physically wrong with them, when the physical symptoms they are experiencing are all due to their anxiety disorder (or depression, or the combination of the two). And I can see many parents wanting to deny that their child has a psychiatric disorder, even a common and treatable one, and instead insisting on finding a physical cause, no matter how small or rare or entirely unrelated to the presenting problem, and how that would be both frustrating for the medical practitioners and bad for the child, who would be better off being treated for their untreated psychiatric problem.
Again, I’m sure there are cases where a doctor writes an illness off as anxiety or depression and it’s actually a serious physical problem. But, there’s many more cases, given the prevalence of those disorders, where a person presents with physical problems, the doctor tries to find a physical cause, but the underlying problem is psychological. I know that my anxiety disorder manifests as many varied and distressing physical sensations, and when I am not taking medication, the physical symptoms can be almost completely debilitating. If there were less stigma around mental illness, parents might not be as reluctant to accept anxiety, depression, or other mental health problems as a diagnosis and instead continue to seek physical causes.
I am a foster parent. I have seen kids enter the system on shaky evidence, and I have seen kids enter the system that should have entered it years ago. I have seen parental rights terminated for the stupidest reasons, and seen kids returned even though I and many others presented evidence to the contrary…then watched those kids end up back in the system if they were lucky. Usually they ended up in the ER or the morgue. Both doctors and social workers may be quick to pull the trigger because they have seen what happens when you delay even a day.
SOA: “Notice I said curable leukemia. If you are going to die already doing some more chemo to live a few more months is a call they can make themselves. But in many cases the doctors usually know that your prognosis is good that you can beat the cancer and so a parent in that case refusing chemo should be intervened upon because they are sentencing a child to die when they don’t have to.”
The decision is often not nearly so straightforward as that makes it sound. How about if the chemo has a 60% chance of working? Or 50%? 30%? 10%? Although even stating such clear-cut odds has (rightly) gone somewhat out of favor, since they’re often mere guesswork. My point was, it’s not crazy to decide at a certain point that you’d rather take your chances and spend whatever time you have left feeling like yourself. My husband did go ahead with extreme treatment, with very bad odds, partly because he felt he owed it to his family. If he’d been single, I doubt he would have, and even given that he’s not, I don’t think he was obliged to go ahead. If he had (as was most likely to happen) died, I’d probably feel pretty terrible that he did get the horrific treatment he did. If I were making such a decision for a 10-year-old I loved. . . well, I’m not so sure that it would be right to continue pursuing an unlikely cure at any cost (human cost, I mean, not financial!).
Anyway, point being, in almost every case, I’d sooner trust a parent to make such a decision much than a bureaucrat employed by a regulatory agency.
sal if you check out the site I mention earlier you can find whole story. from the day she went in to the day she got out. I love know if they were able to the damages done by those horrible doctors who weren’t even suppose to treating her in the first place. that site has lots poor families stories including that one.
Holy cow, SOA, you just dismissed people’s religion, beliefs and choices in one short word strike. I don’t even feel I should have to debate the “stupidity” of a religion or belief. No one is making you do it. But chemo? You are adding that in there like it’s just the only obvious choice for anyone facing cancer.
Tamara: “But chemo? You are adding that in there like it’s just the only obvious choice for anyone facing cancer.”
I don’t disagree with you, but SOA’s assumptions there are not uncommon. Most people (thank heavens!) don’t have first-hand experience of chemo, and even among those who do, some don’t realize how many very different treatments are encompassed by the one term “chemo” as if they were all alike. So somebody whose life was saved by a straightforward and less-debilitating protocol can easily be unaware of how devastating other chemo regimens might be.
Anna, you are right, most people hear chemo and it means one type of treatment. Another reason why I object to blanket statements, I guess.
I could care less about someone’s religion if it advocates letting a kid die because you don’t believe in antibiotics or blood transfusions or surgery. If that is your religion, your religion is stupid.
I can assure you of this- chiropractic is not going to cure your kid’s cancer so if that is the only treatment you are doing for your kid with a good prognosis to beat the cancer with real medical treatment, then yeah, you are a moron and deserve to have your kids taken away temporarily until they are cured.
I have known two kids with cancer and they were cured with modern medicine. Both of those mothers would balk at a parent thinking herbs and fish oil alone could cure their kid. No. You are dumb.
So you, SOA, and your friends are right and anyone with a differing opinion is “dumb”.
At least you are making your position very clear.
“So you, SOA, and your friends are right and anyone with a differing opinion is “dumb”.”
That’s not a very good summary of “if it advocates letting a kid die because you don’t believe in antibiotics or blood transfusions or surgery. If that is your religion, your religion is stupid. ”
Letting a child die of preventable causes is OBJECTIVELY stupid.
It’s one thing to say “my religious beliefs cause me to reject medical care”. If a capable person decides that, that is their call. It is another thing to say “my religious beliefs cause me to reject treatment for that other person over there”, that’s another.
I support giving life-saving medical treatment to children over the parents’ objections, up until they’re 18, then letting them choose for themselves. Faith healing is fine for adults, whether their faith is that God will save them if he wants them to stick around, or their faith is that they’re not really as sick as everyone seems to think, or whatever.
No, SOA, I don’t believe herbs and fish oil will cure cancer either. For instance, my husband would certainly be dead if it weren’t for chemo and radiation. But:
(1) We don’t know that any and every cancer will grow aggressively, absent treatment.
(2) The body does help fight cancer, and overly aggressive treatment can harm its ability to do that. This opinion is not a rejection of modern medicine: as I understand it, there’s a pretty big difference of philosophy on cancer treatment among honest-to-goodness, fully qualified, mainstream oncologists at the present moment, between the nuke-it-with-all-we-got philosophy and the let’s-keep-treatment-minimal-and-give-the-body-a-chance philosophy. I have had two dear friends die at the hands of physicians of the former persuasion, almost certainly much sooner and much sicker than they needed to.
Which is not to say those doctors were evil or criminal. It’s just to say it’s a judgment call, such as ought to be left within the discretion of patients – and their parents.
if doctor says the parents are nuts who are hurting their kid even if it not true well someone decided a long time ago that’s fine. what happen to innocent till proven guilty? doctors and cps because they are in too big hurry to save the kid often don’t take time to be sure the kid does need saving. the proof is either there or not.
Theresa H., it is often not that simple. A physician will suspect abuse and report it. A social worker will investigate, but generally must rely on the opinions of the doctors. There are then legal proceedings with various steps which include a court finding that the allegations are true and that removal is necessary for the child’s safety. During these proceedings, parents are generally represented by attorneys and have the opportunity to present evidence include the testimony of other experts (excluding initial summary removal proceedings). Often you have medical experts testifying on opposite sides. There is no light that goes on to tell the judge which expert has the more accurate opinion where the experts differ as to whether there are facts establishing abuse or not.
“The real monsters today are the ones who see “child abuse” even when staring at kind, compassionate adults”
This reminds me of an old saying – “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
Richard: “Often you have medical experts testifying on opposite sides. There is no light that goes on to tell the judge which expert has the more accurate opinion where the experts differ as to whether there are facts establishing abuse or not.”
Yes, but that’s exactly why cases like these are so mystifying. If the medical issues are unclear enough that professionals in good standing can disagree (as in Justine’s case the Tufts and Boston Childrens doctors disagreed) how can the assertion of the one side be sufficient evidence to terminate the parent-child relationship? That’s what doesn’t make any sense here. It seems as if there ought to be a far higher burden of proof to do something as traumatic as removing a gravely ill child from the support of her parents.
E.g., if all the doctors agreed the parents were inventing this illness, that would be one thing. But that was far from being the case here.
Anna, the Pelletier case is mystifying to me as well based on the press reports, and I am certainly not saying that agencies don’t, at times, take unreasonable positions. Generally, the judge must find removal necessary by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, if a judge just concludes that either expert could equally be right, then the burden of proof is not met and the child goes home. In examining the witnesses, the parties will establish that one expert didn’t know all the facts or give adequate weight to a particular fact or set of facts. The other party will establish that the other expert didn’t read relevant studies or have as extensive experience. In a clashing experts case, the judge is required to determine which expert has the better opinion and whether that opinion is sufficiently better to meet the burden of proof. It’s not a job I would ever want.
@Beth
Non-mobile version, this should work: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Persecuted-parents-or-protected-children-1092970.php
Richard: ” In examining the witnesses, the parties will establish that one expert didn’t know all the facts or give adequate weight to a particular fact or set of facts. The other party will establish that the other expert didn’t read relevant studies or have as extensive experience. In a clashing experts case, the judge is required to determine which expert has the better opinion and whether that opinion is sufficiently better to meet the burden of proof.”
But even if that turned out to be true, how would it prove the parents were abusive, just because they believed the first set of doctors? Shouldn’t the fact that experts disagree be a sufficient defense of their good faith as parents making a difficult decision and listening to the expert they considered trustworthy? It’s no like they were taking their kid to some kind of faith-healer or something. (Sorry – I know you didn’t make this decision, and you say you’re as mystified as I am, so I’m not saying you have to have an answer to this.)
it is that simple. doctors decide that sick kid must be abuse because the parents are worried?! most of the so called experts in abuse couldn’t tell the difference between abuse and disease that mimic abuse. like eds or rickets. asking second opion is legal but doctor can and will call cps over you trying get your sick kid better. if one doctor doesn’t seem to be able to help you should be able to go to as many doctors as it takes to find one that does. but if you do this and they find out you must be a bad parent who makes their kids sick and next comes cps to break your family up. if there is abuse there will be proof. I could call you a druggie and thief and if I have power I could ruin your life even if none of these things are true. kids get grab and if the families are lucky they will get kids back but this could take months or even years. would you want to be taken from your loving because someone thinks they did something bad to you? I know I wouldn’t. have actual proof or leave the family alone. I mean proof like a clear test or video of the abuse. and when I say a clear test I mean one that can tell if something that doesn’t belong in someone is there and not ones like poppy seed cases were used.
“But even if that turned out to be true, how would it prove the parents were abusive, just because they believed the first set of doctors?”
It doesn’t. It might, however, convince the judge that the treatment plan supported by one set of experts is better than the treatment plan supported by the other… thereby causing the judge to order one treatment plan be followed, and the other(s) not. (That is, custody of the child remains unchanged, but the court orders a particular treatment plan be followed. As long as the family follows the treatment plan ordered, they keep custody. If they second-guess the judge without following the proper channels, then they have problems.)
Best to avoid this scenario, if you can, as fortunately the overwhelming majority of cases provide. Sometimes you get part of the family supporting one course of treatment, and another part of the family supporting another, and THAT’S what lands the matter in court. I can only imagine that judges try to duck these cases whenever possible.
“doctor can and will call cps over you trying get your sick kid better.”
So what?
“if you do this and they find out you must be a bad parent who makes their kids sick and next comes cps to break your family up.”
Or here comes CPS to say “there’s nothing wrong here.” Or even here comes CPS to say “the state has resources that you don’t. Do you need help obtaining them?”
They’re not the boogeyman. It’s not like they take the kids, tie them up in a burlap sack, and toss them off a bridge.
myka,
So you believe that destroying innocent families is acceptable collateral damage? So executing innocent people is okay with you as long as the majority of those killed by the state are guilty?
As for the social workers, cps workers, doctors, nurses, cops and any other person of authority, that has seen too much, become jaded, and most importantly cannot remain objective………………well it is time for them to get out and find a new career.
They cannot let emotions enter into their job. They MUST remain objective.
“It doesn’t. It might, however, convince the judge that the treatment plan supported by one set of experts is better than the treatment plan supported by the other… thereby causing the judge to order one treatment plan be followed, and the other(s) not.”
I would think if the treatment plan is that debatable, judicial intrusion is unjustified, period. Why is a judge more qualified to decide such a matter?
Warren, I don’t think it’s fair to attack Myka about this. She wasn’t saying CPS/mandatory reporters were in the right; she was just trying to help us understand why they might do what they do. I was impressed by the honesty fo her comment, personally. The proper response to “erring on the safe side” (understood as removing children from their parents on the grounds of the slightest suspicion of anything) is to point out that CPS should balance the risk of leaving kids with abusive parents against the risk of traumatically separating kids from loving parents. But I don’t think berating her is helpful.
SOA,
Your ignorance never fails to surprise me. In one comment you managed to ridicule and insult every person of faith in the world.
“When you insult my faith, you insult your faith and all faiths around the world.”, I would love to remember who said that, but it is so very true.
And until you can prove that the immortal soul does not exist, I suggest you keep your bigotry to yourself.
” Why is a judge more qualified to decide such a matter?”
It’s in the job description.
“It’s in the job description.”
I.e., deciding which doctor’s recommendations to follow? It certainly shouldn’t be, and if that’s come to be the case, the power of the judiciary has seriously out-stepped its intended purpose.
“‘It’s in the job description.’
I.e., deciding which doctor’s recommendations to follow? It certainly shouldn’t be, and if that’s come to be the case, the power of the judiciary has seriously out-stepped its intended purpose.”
The job of the judiciary is to decide things that are brought before them. That’s what they DO. They don’t come up with diagnoses and and treatment plans, that’s not what they do. They decide between competing claims (“I’m right!” “No, I’m right!” “No you’re not, I am!”) Hopefully, they do so with impartiality and wisdom (not guaranteed, your mileage may vary) but…
If you have two competing claims for authority to decide on a medical treatment plan… and the choices are mutually exclusive… SOMEBODY has to decide between them. Dueling pistols at ten paces will also do the trick, but may not be ideal.
“The job of the judiciary is to decide things that are brought before them. That’s what they DO. ”
Hmm. It was my impression that they were supposed to decide CRIMINAL matters brought before them.
“Hmm. It was my impression that they were supposed to decide CRIMINAL matters brought before them.”
You need a new impression. Judges don’t decide criminal cases, juries do. Judges do, however, decide civil cases.
@Warren – Way to put words in my mouth. that is not even close to what I said. I was simply trying to point out a point of view most people never see. And if you bothered to read my post fully you might have noticed how i mentioned that I have had kids who should never have been taken from their parents.
And yes, they are supposed to be objective. But they are also human beings. And there is no one way abuse looks. If they take the kids away prematurely they get yelled at. If they don’t take the kids away in time they get yelled at. But if they don’t take the kids away in time those kids may end up dead or injured. Then there are inquiries and people getting fired.
The system is broken, very broken, and I can’t see how to put it back on track. All I can do is take these children in, give them love and care and hope the best situation FOR THE CHILD happens.
“You need a new impression. Judges don’t decide criminal cases, juries do. Judges do, however, decide civil cases.”
Maybe you need a new impression. Judges certainly do decide criminal cases, or have you forgot that you can opt for trial by judge or jury?
“@Warren — Way to put words in my mouth. that is not even close to what I said.”
Get used to that… it’s going to keep happening.
“The system is broken, very broken, and I can’t see how to put it back on track. All I can do is take these children in, give them love and care and hope the best situation FOR THE CHILD happens.”
The system is horrible and fraught with error. Thing is, nobody has anything that works better. (And, in being a foster parent, you’re doing your part… most people can’t or won’t even do that much. Thank you for your efforts.)
myka,
The system is broken, but it is the only one we have type of reasoning is unacceptable. Period.
I don’t care if they are human, horses, spiders or jellyfish, if they cannot remain objective they have no right being in those positions. There is just too much at stake.
James,
I have come to the conclusion you are a very pitiful and lonely man. Not worth my time.
Considering the widespread corruption of doctors by the pharmaceutical industry, parents have good reason to seek second and third opinions instead of trusting any doctor who works in a hospital. A recent article in JAMA Internal Medicine questions the FDA’s recent approval of allergy treatment that is not significantly better than previous (cheaper) treatments.
James imagine your kid is sick. the doctors seem to be unable to make your child better so you decide you want take your child to another who will hopefully have the right answer. now a good parent will do this as long it take to get their kid better but doctors if you try will call cps on you. a parent knows their better then anyone. how would knowing that because you did your job as a parent and tried to take of your kid someone who doesn’t like not having all answer call cps and if you’re lucky you’ll get your kid back. meanwhile the doctors have decide since your kid is a ward of the state they are now a guinea pig which they pump full any meds they please. I think this is true so without proof I’ll call cps and rip your family apart should never be the way. try checking out the site I mention earlier and you see families trying do the right thing by their kids being ripped apart on nothing but someone’s say- so. if someone thinks that then look for proof it will be there then rip the family apart after you find it.
And yet, just yesterday, one of the lead newstories was how Doctors are missing opportunities to report abuse by not scanning for old fractures.
James, it’s also their job to throw cases out that aren’t fit to be decided by the courts. If I bring suit against my husband because he didn’t take out the garbage, it’s not the judge’s job to decide who’s right, and he will recognize that, so he’ll throw the case out.
Similarly, if there are two competing treatment plans both from reputable physicians based on credible methodologies, it’s not the judge’s job to pick one, it’s his job to throw the question out of court and let somebody more immediately responsible, like, say, a PARENT, make the decision.
pentamom,
Amen.
I wonder how that works. If the judge goes against the attending doctor, and sides with the new expert, that means in court a judge has decided the attending is wrong. Would that not make a malpractice suit a slam dunk?
“James, it’s also their job to throw cases out that aren’t fit to be decided by the courts.”
Yeah, but… this isn’t that.
” If I bring suit against my husband because he didn’t take out the garbage, it’s not the judge’s job to decide who’s right, and he will recognize that, so he’ll throw the case out.”
You’re confusing lack of a cause of action for lack of a justiciable matter. This is not the same thing.
“Similarly, if there are two competing treatment plans both from reputable physicians based on credible methodologies, it’s not the judge’s job to pick one,”
It can be, if A( one treatment plans is supported by one group that has an interest in the child’s well-being (one of the parents) and B) the other treatment plan is supported by another group that ALSO has an interest in the child’s well-being (the other parent, the child, the state) The judge has to decide whose choice wins. What is the basis for deciding? Family court decisions are based on “the best interests of the child”. What is the best interests of the child? Why, it would be whichever treatment plan produces the best results.
” it’s his job to throw the question out of court and let somebody more immediately responsible, like, say, a PARENT, make the decision.”
Which one? The one who wants treatment plan A, or the one who wants treatment plan B? What if the parents are united in wanting one treatment plan, but the child wants the other?
Courts don’t just get this sort of thing when the child involved is a minor, either. Sometimes the child is an adult, but unable to make their own medical-care decisions. Who decides then? Parents, or spouses?
Pretending that this is an issue that can NEVER be properly before a court? Entertaining, but, meanwhile, here in the real world, this stuff comes up, and the disputes need adjudication, and we have a mechanism for adjudicating disputes.
and it would great if when doctors auger about who is right if judges would say let parents decide which doc to trust but in the case of Justina Pelletier they chose not look at the proof her family had of her real illness and blindly listen to those that stole that child. if doctors don’t like a previous doctor’s idea on what wrong then they should go take it up with them not hurt this kid more.
“Hmm. It was my impression that they were supposed to decide CRIMINAL matters brought before them.”
Judges also sit at the head of civil cases. CPS cases are civil, not criminal. The judge doesn’t have to find that a single criminal law has been violated. In fact, any criminal issues faced by the parents in a CPS case are decided by a completely different court. A higher court whose rules (bond conditions, sentence conditions, etc.) and decisions are binding on the judge deciding the CPS case.
CPS cases are generally handled in juvenile or family court. Adult criminal matters are generally handled in State or Superior (Supreme in NY) Court. A judge sits at the head of juvenile and family court and makes all decisions – legal and factual. There is no jury. In State and Superior Court, the judge makes decisions as to the law, but decisions as to the facts of the case are made by a jury (in the rare case that go to trial; the vast majority of cases – criminal or civil – resolve by agreement).
“Judges don’t decide criminal cases, juries do. Judges do, however, decide civil cases.”
Neither of these statements are true. Judges decide both criminal and civil matters. Juries decide both criminal and civil matters. It all depends on the court, jurisdiction and case. Besides the obvious ability to waive your right to a jury trial that Warren pointed out, judges in Juvenile, Probate and Municipal Courts decide criminal matters every day in many states.
I just read (and nodded along) your take on what you seem to avoid to call euthanasia: http://www.downtownexpress.com/2015/07/13/law-forces-n-y-doctors-to-prolong-the-suffering-for-terminally-ill/
Now, do I even want to know what happens when parents of a very ill child reach the point that they think their kid is better off dead?
@SOA, James etc: “”letting a kid die because you don’t believe in antibiotics or blood transfusions or surgery. If that is your religion, your religion is stupid. ”
Letting a child die of preventable causes is OBJECTIVELY stupid.”
In that case you could say this is just evolution in working…
Was checking Fox 28 for Lenore’s appearance and saw an interesting story.
Indiana’s DCS is being sued by a case worker for violating Indiana law. Not enough workers to cover the caseload.
“Letting a child die of preventable causes is OBJECTIVELY stupid.”
In that case you could say this is just evolution in working…”
You could say that if you didn’t understand how evolution works.
“”Judges don’t decide criminal cases, juries do. Judges do, however, decide civil cases.”
Neither of these statements are true.”
One of them is oversimplified, but (mostly) true. The other one is absolutely true.
Well, in this case the parents did not disagree. The parents, the child, and her own team of doctors were all in agreement. A different doctor shoved his oar in and questioned the first set of doctors’ diagnosis. So no, I don’t see how deciding between the two doctors’ opinions was in any way an appropriate task for the judge (“criminal” or not). Different fully-qualified and reputable medical professionals had different opinions on a case; the family unanimously favored one of them. (Incidentally, the diagnosis of the doctors who knew the patient and all the details of the case, not the one who had just seen her for the first time.) This case should never have been in front of a judge in the first place.
“Well, in this case the parents did not disagree.”
The Pelletier case was handled all sorts of wrongly. To generalize from this that all cases will be handled wrongly is not rational.
“This case should never have been in front of a judge in the first place.”
True, but not for the reason you outline.
Donna,
There is also the rare, maybe not, granting of the motion to set aside the jury’s verdict. I assume this is a tactic used far more often than it is ever granted, but still it does happen?
James: “You could say that if you didn’t understand how evolution works”
Eh…. ?!
Sorry, I don’t feel like explaining it.
James, switching the scenario to a situation where there are two parents who don’t agree is, well, switching the scenario. I didn’t say there could never be such a situation where the judge would have something to decide, I said the situation where there was no real reason to call the parents’ decision into legal question was one where the judge should have had nothing to decide.
The state doesn’t have an interest that should oppose the parents’ interest unless there’s some reason to think the parents are endangering the child. Since the treatment supported by the parents was a credible plan put forth by credible people, the judge should have tossed the case out, not agreed with you that there was actually something here he needed to do. The judge was literally deciding which set of actual doctors was right about a medical case, and he’s not a doctor. How can you possibly defend that?
“James, switching the scenario to a situation where there are two parents who don’t agree is, well, switching the scenario.”
No, it isn’t. Every case that lands in a court has (at least) two parties, each with an interest in the child. The most common of these is two parents who disagree, but this is not the only case, and parents vs. state is not exactly unheard-of, and a default rule of “always choose the parents over the state” is not satisfactory.
“The state doesn’t have an interest that should oppose the parents’ interest unless there’s some reason to think the parents are endangering the child.”
The state had a reason to think the parents were endangering the child. They were incorrect in that assessment. (as I said, lots of things wrong in that particular case. But that doesn’t extend to the general case.
“Since the treatment supported by the parents was a credible plan put forth by credible people, the judge should have tossed the case out, not agreed with you that there was actually something here he needed to do.”
Alas, neither precognition nor omniscience are qualities of Earthly judges.
“The judge was literally deciding which set of actual doctors was right about a medical case, and he’s not a doctor. How can you possibly defend that?”
The judge is a judge, and judges decide things. There’s a long list of things judges are not which does not limit their authority to act. They’re not inventors, but they decide things about patents. They’re not businessmen, but they decide things about contracts. Hell, JURIES are even less qualified to judge things, and we give them the job of deciding facts*
What went wrong in the Pelletier case was that information needed to form accurate decisions wasn’t getting where it needed to be. This caused bad decisions, which compounded rather badly for everyone involved.
*For the pedantic, add “unless it’s a bench trial.”
Actually, it sounds like the leading driver for all the miscarriages of justice in this case was the definition of “medical child abuse” itself. As stated, this definition is guaranteed to lead to serious injustice, unless you believe all of the following:
(1) every serious medical condition is easy to diagnose
(2) all doctors are equal
(3) all doctors spend enough time talking to their patients to make good diagnoses and communicate perfectly with the patient’s other doctors
As long as those statements are not all true (which anybody with firsthand experience of serious illness in the family can attest they are not), the definition of “medical child abuse” that has apparently become prevalent is guaranteed to catch in its net many parents of children with serious but nebulous ailments (e.g., Crones disease, Lyme disease, rheumatoid arthritis, rare genetic diseases, etc., etc., etc.) Of course those parents will be protective, pursue second opinions, request further tests. How could they not?
“One of them is oversimplified, but (mostly) true. The other one is absolutely true.”
I’d ask for a refund on that legal education of yours. Both statements CAN be true in some cases. Both can also be false in others. Judges decide their fair share of criminal cases. Juries decide their fair share of civil cases. The extreme vast majority of both are decided by the parties themselves by agreement.
“Actually, it sounds like the leading driver for all the miscarriages of justice in this case was the definition of “medical child abuse” itself.”
And what definition might that be?
“Both statements CAN be true in some cases.”
I’ll say it again. One of them is oversimplified but mostly true (and certainly more true than the argument it was refuting). The other one is absolutely true.
“Judges decide their fair share of criminal cases.”
This is the one that’s oversimplified. Yes, I left out (by intention) a discussion of bench trials. JNOV also seemed extraneous to the point I was making. Juries, WHEN PRESENT, are the fact-finders in criminal trials. I guess I’ll take your word for it that juveniles get bench trials rather than jury trials; I don’t care enough to look up what the law is in my home jurisdiction. In any case, to get meta, the general rule is that the judge can’t decide to decide a criminal case; that decision is out of his- or her-hands.
“Juries decide their fair share of civil cases.”
Irrelevant, as there’s no claim otherwise.
“The extreme vast majority of both are decided by the parties themselves by agreement.”
I think you’re stretching the meaning of the word “agreement” with regard to resolution of criminal cases.
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I put the .50 calibre Donna way ahead on points.
“JNOV also seemed extraneous to the point I was making.”
I have no idea what point you were trying to make, so I’ll take your word for that.
“Juries, WHEN PRESENT, are the fact-finders in criminal trials.”
And juries, WHEN PRESENT, are the fact-finders in civil cases. Still fail to understand the distinction that you are making.
“The general rule is that the judge can’t decide to decide a criminal case; that decision is out of his- or her-hands.”
You clearly missed the days of criminal procedure when they discussed motions to suppress, demurrers, pleas in bar and directed verdicts. All decided by a judge and all can (in the first instance) or do (in the rest) allow a judge to basically decide to decide a criminal case.
You also apparently slept through much of civil procedure. A judge can’t simply decide to decide a civil case either. He can rule on the civil equivalents of the above motions in such a way as to end the case (but for appeals), but he can’t just start sua sponte making rulings without motions or ignore demands for a jury trial and decide to make a decision himself any more than a criminal judge can.
“I think you’re stretching the meaning of the word “agreement” with regard to resolution of criminal cases.”
Probably, but I’ve never known a civil defendant who didn’t feel the same about the resolution of his/her case.
So very much fun!
“”JNOV also seemed extraneous to the point I was making.”
I have no idea what point you were trying to make, so I’ll take your word for that.
You don’t see how the very few cases where judge overrules the jury’s findings has any relevance to whether or not the judge is deciding the case?
“Juries, WHEN PRESENT, are the fact-finders in criminal trials.”
And juries, WHEN PRESENT, are the fact-finders in civil cases. Still fail to understand the distinction that you are making.”
Back at you. Relevance?
“The general rule is that the judge can’t decide to decide a criminal case; that decision is out of his- or her-hands.”
You clearly missed the days of criminal procedure when they…”
Didn’t take that class at all. No interest in criminal law.
“You also apparently slept through much of civil procedure.”
You’ve been hanging out with Warren too much. You’ve picked up his habit of lame insults.
“A judge can’t simply decide to decide a civil case either.”
Nor did anyone claim they could.
Judging by the incoherent ramblings by James, Donna landed the knock out punch.
“You also apparently slept through much of civil procedure.”
Which class did I sleep through wherein I would have learned that judges don’t decide any civil cases?
I found this interesting article about how CPS and hospital collude to kidnap children with rare genetic disorders: http://www.inquisitr.com/1550449/are-hospitals-and-child-protective-services-conspiring-to-kidnap-children/
@Warren: That made me laugh out loud 🙂
Pap,
I had to pick between the boxing comparison and a fish flopping in the bottom of the boat. Both were valid. But I wanted to make sure Donna got the credit she deserved. Now he is just babbling like a boxer that took one too many blows to the head.
No the state actually did not have any valid reason whatsoever to think that. They might have thought they did, but they did not. That’s what the judge is there for — to say, “The state has no valid interest here since the facts of the situation do not in any way indicate that the parents have acted maliciously or neglectfully toward the child. Therefore, state, butt out, the decision is back in the parents’ hands.”
James I think the class you slept through is the logic class where you should have learned that a universal statement is false if there are exceptions.
“I think the class you slept through is the logic class where you should have learned that a universal statement is false if there are exceptions.”
What universal statement?
“Judges don’t decide criminal cases.”
That statement is false if judges decide criminal cases, which they do.
“”Judges don’t decide criminal cases.”
That statement is false if judges decide criminal cases, which they do.”
Yes, that was an oversimplification. I should have said so before.
James,
Oversimplification? BS! You did not oversimplify that statement. You were simply wrong.
What about Isaiah Rider a 17 year old taken at 16 and raped in foster care? They are trying to say he has to stay in foster care past 18
This FRK post is my heads-up that Jessica Pelletier is home with her parents. Thank heaven. I read an extensive Slate article on it last year, and while there were lots of knowing hints in the reader comments that there were lots of details the media didn’t know because of patient privacy, that the hospital and doctors who called Munchausen’s would be vindicated, I’m assuming that didn’t happen. James Pollock, I’m sure plenty of readers have responded, but the most obvious difference is that when parents are seeking medical help for a child with a rare condition that is hard to diagnose, this kind of hyper-scrutiny of the parents’ actions and behavior is likely to result in kids being unjustly removed from homes. Ever read the column Medical Mysteries in The Washington Post? A near-constant is that the patients are suspected or accused of being hypochondriacs unless their symptoms are so overt and dramatic that they preclude that kind of conclusion. Having been on the receiving end of that treatment, and to add insult to injury, over effects from medication the doctor who prescribed it didn’t fully understand, I have felt a small corner of the frustration these people must experience.
hey Maggie do you know if the poor girl is back in the shape she was before the doctors decide to help her? because before they decide to help she was an ice skater and pretty healthy kid for the most part. her real illness made very vulnerable to every day illness like colds and made them be harder on her. but thanks to help that wasn’t needed she was lucky to get out alive. mbp looks just like a worried parent so how can doctors be so sure it is mbp and not a caring parent? and some test well are easily fooled like the poppy seed test that got babies stolen from their moms. if the test is going to be able to be fooled then they should find a better test